Dinnae?

[mockingbyrd7]

So, throughout the course of Order of the Stick, I've noticed that dwarves - Durkon in particular - substitute "do not" or "don't" with "dinnae". I'm assuming they have an accent that resembles a thick, Scottish brogue. Perhaps my knowledge of accents isn't as extensive I thought, but I "dinnae" understand where that pronunciation comes from. Does anyone else find this a tad odd? :smallconfused:

[Godskook]

I've always assumed that dwarfs are modeled after Celtic/Gaelic/Norse peoples. Hence the beer drinking and accent. Dinnae would be rather expected for someone who from a Celtic/Gaelic background, I'm not sure about Norse.

[Zeitgeist]

If I'm not mistaken, "ah dinnae kin" = "I do not know."

I think "kin" is a much bigger stretch in language. Kin = know? That's tricky.

[Mystic Muse]

it's like the croc's accent in the comic strip "pearls before swine" or V's gender. ambiguous

[Tempest Fennac]

I always recognised the Dwarves as having Scottish accents.

[Yendor]

"Nae" is a Scottish word for "no" or "not". And fantasy dwarves are almost always portrayed with Scottish accents for some reason. It's like there's an ISO standard or something.

[factotum]

If I'm not mistaken, "ah dinnae kin" = "I do not know."

I think "kin" is a much bigger stretch in language. Kin = know? That's tricky.

Actually, it's "ken", and if you look it up in a dictionary you'll find it's an old word meaning "knowledge or understanding" (as in "It's beyond my ken" meaning "I don't know"). Looked at it that way, the Scottish usage is not such a stretch!

[petersohn]

"Nae" is a Scottish word for "no" or "not". And fantasy dwarves are almost always portrayed with Scottish accents for some reason. It's like there's an ISO standard or something.
Heh heh. Maybe because dwarves are a parody of Scottish people. Or at least it was originally, and the accent stuck.

[cheezewizz2000]

Actually, it's "ken", and if you look it up in a dictionary you'll find it's an old word meaning "knowledge or understanding" (as in "It's beyond my ken" meaning "I don't know"). Looked at it that way, the Scottish usage is not such a stretch!

And the Scot's tendancy to shorten vowels makes "kin" a pretty good phonetic spelling of ken.

The OP needs to read some Robbie Burns methinks, like the original Auld Lang Syne.

[Francis Davey]

Ken is actually cognate to (has the same origin) as the word "can" as in "I know" implies "I am able to".

In fact (being more technical) can is a past form of ken which is why you say "he can" not "he cans", its what grammarians call a "preterite present".

I am sure everyone feels happier knowing that. :smallsmile:

[Dagren]

Heh heh. Maybe because dwarves are a parody of Scottish people. Or at least it was originally, and the accent stuck.If they are, they're not a very good one. I sure don't know many 4 foot Scotsmen.

[TrikSter]

I am sure everyone feels happier knowing that. :smallsmile:
I am :smallsmile:

[Island Gorilla]

Actually, what we recognise today as fantasy dwarfs were originally conceived by Wagner to represent Jews.

Obviously, this eventually became distasteful and the general depiction of dwarfs shifted. As with many fantasy tropes, you can probably attribute the main impetus of the shift to Tolkien.

[Equester]

actually the dwarfs or the DnD dwarves (to distinguish them from humans suffering from dwarfism I suppose).

Originate from Norse mythology, both Wagner and Tolkien base there dwarfs on the Nordic tradition.
In Norse mythology dwarfs are miners and master smiths, for instance the spear of Odin and the Hammer of Thor are made by dwarfs.
all the dwarfs in the Hobbit have names from famous dwarfs from Norse mythology. Even Gandalf is the name of a Dwarf in Norse mythology.

[Lady Ouroboros]

I suppose I must be a stereotypical Scot (or a dwarf) since I use dinnae for don't all the time. I'm actually always slightly shocked when I hear myself recorded, because I sound so Scottish. Maybe the whole dwarves=love gold has become equated to the whole Scottish=mean thing - what with the love of wealth and all that.

I dinnae ken, really. :smallwink:

[Lissou]

Ken is actually cognate to (has the same origin) as the word "can" as in "I know" implies "I am able to".

In fact (being more technical) can is a past form of ken which is why you say "he can" not "he cans", its what grammarians call a "preterite present".

I am sure everyone feels happier knowing that. :smallsmile:

... really? I wasn't taught that at all. I was taught that "can" is a modal, and as all modals, t can't be used with "to" ("to can" doesn't exist. Well, it does, but only because there is another verb, regarding tin cans) or with "s" for third person ("he cans". Here again, works if he's canning).

If "can" is a past form, how come it has a past form too? (could).

The way I was taught it, modals work two by two, past and present, and all follow the rule (no "to", no "s"):

could - can
should - shall
would - will
might - may
ought to - must (no idea why this one doesn't look the same at all in past and present)

"will" and "can" being weird because they both also exist as a verb that's not a modal (to can goods, to will something to happen).

So, I'm curious about your "ken" thing, and how the other modals fit in there, especially "could", that would then become the past form of a past form.

[Island Gorilla]

actually the dwarfs or the DnD dwarves (to distinguish them from humans suffering from dwarfism I suppose).

Originate from Norse mythology, both Wagner and Tolkien base there dwarfs on the Nordic tradition.
In Norse mythology dwarfs are miners and master smiths, for instance the spear of Odin and the Hammer of Thor are made by dwarfs.

Yes and no. Norse 'dwarves' had more in common with what we'd call dark elves or drow today. They weren't even short.
While yes, they did have a reputation for craftsmanship and rune magic, they didn't have their characteristic love of gold until Wagner Flanderised them to Hel and back. Like I said: unsavoury Jew analogues.

[Eleshar]

Lissou:

In fact, as far as I know, many English preterits (past simple) forms are ancient past participles (active) that shifted their meaning to simple verb whereas the original preterit forms disappeared.

The exceptions are some of those modal verbs like "can" or "must" (it is clear from the latter because of this final -t... in german there is the same verb "mussen" (Ich muss = I must) without any T in it. The explanation is that the original verb "muss" (or something like that that was in English) disappeared and the past "mus-t" (like learn x learn-t, dream x dream-t) took on the function of present. Hence the absence of final -s in the 3SG.
Also "ought" is no past form of "must" and the verb "to can (to put something into cans)" has nothing to do with "can (to be able to)".

[WalkingTarget]

... really? I wasn't taught that at all. I was taught that "can" is a modal, and as all modals, t can't be used with "to" ("to can" doesn't exist. Well, it does, but only because there is another verb, regarding tin cans) or with "s" for third person ("he cans". Here again, works if he's canning).

If "can" is a past form, how come it has a past form too? (could).

The way I was taught it, modals work two by two, past and present, and all follow the rule (no "to", no "s"):

could - can
should - shall
would - will
might - may
ought to - must (no idea why this one doesn't look the same at all in past and present)

"will" and "can" being weird because they both also exist as a verb that's not a modal (to can goods, to will something to happen).

So, I'm curious about your "ken" thing, and how the other modals fit in there, especially "could", that would then become the past form of a past form.

A canner extremely canny
One morning remarked to his granny
"A canner can can
anything that he can,
but a canner can't can a can, can he?"

...I'll get my coat.

[Zeitgeist]

... really? I wasn't taught that at all. I was taught that "can" is a modal, and as all modals, t can't be used with "to" ("to can" doesn't exist. Well, it does, but only because there is another verb, regarding tin cans) or with "s" for third person ("he cans". Here again, works if he's canning).

If "can" is a past form, how come it has a past form too? (could).

The way I was taught it, modals work two by two, past and present, and all follow the rule (no "to", no "s"):

could - can
should - shall
would - will
might - may
ought to - must (no idea why this one doesn't look the same at all in past and present)

"will" and "can" being weird because they both also exist as a verb that's not a modal (to can goods, to will something to happen).

So, I'm curious about your "ken" thing, and how the other modals fit in there, especially "could", that would then become the past form of a past form.

What's the difference between "should" and "ought to"? I can't think of a single scenario where I could not use either word interchangeably.

"I should help him."
"I ought to help him."

for one example.

[Dogmantra]

What's the difference between "should" and "ought to"? I can't think of a single scenario where I could not use either word interchangeably.

"I should help him."
"I ought to help him."

for one example.

I'd say should implies a more pressing need.
"I should start wearing clothes down the shops"
"I ought to take a shower in a minute... nah, I'll just watch this video of a cat climing a lamp-post on youtube first"

But then that's just me. :smallwink:

[Zeitgeist]

And as for "shall", I always thought of it more as a "should and will". Should just means it would be in someone's best interested if you did something. Shall usually means you are going to do it, at least for all I've heard.

It's more like "will", except "shall" is "should and will".

I just don't think it's quite so linear and simple as Lissou presented.

[Trebuchet]

Disclaimer: I'm from the United States, and not a philologist or linguist. Apologies to anyone from Scotland who may find errors here.

My understanding, after a literary tour on a wonderful trip to Scotland, is that writing in the Scottish Dialect was widely popularized by the poet Robert Burns, who wrote most of his poems the way they were really pronounced, rather than using the standard English spelling.

For example, in his famous poem "To a Mouse," many of the words are nearly incomprehensible to an American, but it keeps a more musical quality:


But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain;
The best-laid schemes o' mice an 'men
Gang aft agley,
An lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy.


In Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" series, the tiny Nac Mac Feegle also talk like that. James Herriot, the Glaswegian author of All Creatures Great and Small wrote about the differences between his Scottish vocabulary and the Yorkshire words he encountered when he became a veterinarian, and he spelled words out like that, too. It made it really hard for Herriot to treat animals, when he had no idea what the owners said was wrong.

For some reason the dwarfs of Burlew's universe sound like they are from Scotland. I like it, and I don't find it odd at all.

[Totally Guy]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k7VoFiagfs&feature=related) is a challenge to understand. Well unless you're from Glasgow.

[Lissou]

I do't think it's "simple and linear", and I realise that the way we're taught in middle school obviously simplifies things. I was just curious about the "can is a past form" when can /has/ a past form. I guess the explanation makes sense, though.

Although, I'm not sure about the difference between ought to and should. I do know however that the difference between shall and will is that will implies being willing to, when shall is more along the lines of "I'll do it because I have to, not because I want to".
(Once again, that's how it was taught, I wouldn't be surprised if it's simplified).

I'd wager that if we're told "ought to" is the past of "must", and "should" of "shall", if we classify them as such, it might be that the difference between "ought to" and "should" is the same that between "must" and "shall".
Obviously, I'm just throwing that out there, your guess is as good as mine.

[JJ48]

I'm sorry that I don't have any language-based reasons behind saying this, but I've always kind of felt that "ought to" and "should" just have a different sense about them. "Should" seems like "this is the logical/correct thing to do", whereas "ought to" seems more like "this is the RIGHT thing to do" (from a moral/ethical/whatever standpoint.)

Perhaps an example would be in order. Say a man commits a crime, and then gets caught because he made a really stupid mistake. Now, I could say that the man SHOULD have gotten away with it (in the sense that, had he not made a stupid mistake, he WOULD have gotten away with it.) But saying the man OUGHT TO have gotten away with it just seems to have a completely different feel to it (as if the legal system was wrong for not allowing him to do so).

Of course, in modern usage, the two get interchanged a lot, sort of like "can" and "will". ("Yes, I CAN reach that box on the top shelf for you. Thanks for asking. Oh? You meant WILL I reach the box on the top shelf for you? Well why didn't you say so?") And I could be wrong about the whole thing, but that's how I kind of interpret it.

[Lemarc]

Yes and no. Norse 'dwarves' had more in common with what we'd call dark elves or drow today. They weren't even short.
While yes, they did have a reputation for craftsmanship and rune magic, they didn't have their characteristic love of gold until Wagner Flanderised them to Hel and back. Like I said: unsavoury Jew analogues.
Wagner has very little to do with it. Modern fantasy dwarfs are derived from dwarves as Tolkien created them, which were based on Norse mythological dwarfs, fairy-tail dwarfs and medieval texts on Jews (although as far as I know Tolkien himself was not anti-Semitic). After passing through legions of copycat fantasy writers, along with elves, and picking up a Scottish accent along the way for some reason, they ended up in D&D.

[oxybe]

durkon's not the only one with a funny accent, you should hear mine :smallamused:.

for an example of everyday usage of the "chiac", the everyday dialect of us french acadians, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPXGtR2u5WM)youtube video can give you some insight. a few instances sound a little forced, but most family reunions sound like that.

it's written form (as seen in some of the comments) can be pretty illegible if it emphasises a heavy accent.

one of my french coworkers always gets a kick hearing me talk when i'm not on the phone working. she's not from the area so she loves our accent.

the character, if you're interested, is "acadieman" from the french comic of the same name in NB. never heard about it until 3-4 years ago when i lived in Moncton.

[Haruki-kun]

Honestly, I always heard Durkon just a little bit like....

Warning: Your mind will be poisoned.
http://www.quizfarm.com/images/1166199902krabs.gif

[Elan man]

Celtic or scottish
:durkon: durkons new years eve tradition is awsome I gotta try it

[Dixieboy]

actually the dwarfs or the DnD dwarves (to distinguish them from humans suffering from dwarfism I suppose).

Originate from Norse mythology, both Wagner and Tolkien base there dwarfs on the Nordic tradition.
In Norse mythology dwarfs are miners and master smiths, for instance the spear of Odin and the Hammer of Thor are made by dwarfs.
all the dwarfs in the Hobbit have names from famous dwarfs from Norse mythology. Even Gandalf is the name of a Dwarf in Norse mythology.Gandalf is also the king of Vingulmark.

But most of the characteristic we know dwarfs by fits poorly with dwarfs from Norse mythology.

Also; Mjolnir and Gungnir are poor examples of dwarf craftmanship, seeing as they were both subpar. (Mjolnir having been created with a short shaft and Gungnir serving it's master very poorly.)

[Rockbird]

Personally i find the ship you could keep in your pocket to be one of the more impressive ones.

And, of course, the chain made from the beards of women, the noise of cats feet, the roots of mountains, the spittle of birds, the sinews of bears and the breath of fish.

[JJ48]

Celtic or scottish
:durkon: durkons new years eve tradition is awsome I gotta try it

It's not a New Years Eve tradition. It's pretty much anytime anyone counts anything.

[Nimrod's Son]

:durkon: durkons new years eve tradition is awsome I gotta try it
I wouldn't. I mean, downing a shot for each number of the countdown, I can understand. But a pint of ale? One for each number of the countdown? If you can manage that, either you're counting v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y or you're, like, Jabba the Hutt or something.

[Tyrmatt]

Indeed, "I dinnae" tends to substitute for I do not. And ken is used in the classical sense up here meaning understanding.

"Aye, I dinnae ken whut he was ravin' aboot. Lad jes' went aff 'is nut an' start screamin' his heid aff. Somethin' aboot trees..."

I imagine most people can get the jist of that but it basically translates into Queen's English as;

"Indeed, I do not know what he was shouting about. The boy lost his mind and started shouting. Something about deciduous oxygen production units"

The fantasy trope of dwarves always being Scottish stems from British fantasy writers needing a short, predominantly ginger, mountain dwelling people. The Scots naturally fill this niche quite well. This being said, I'm 6'2" and have dark hair and am totally incapable of growing a beard, but the idea stands :p
Halflings in my mind often tend to sound Welsh and Gnomes sound Irish. Actually to be fair most pixies and other similar fey-races sound Scottish to me as well but that's because I read all the old wives tales when I was a child and they were quite obviously all cribbed from Scottish myth :)

[Holammer]

I'm not very fond of Dwarves speaking with a clearly Gaelic/Scottish dialect. It makes sense that they speak common in a gruff voice. But I always figured their own language would have the sound and rhythm of a Semitic language such as arabic/hebrew. Like Tolkien's Khuzdul.

Baruk Khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!

[Equester]

Gandalf is also the king of Vingulmark.

But most of the characteristic we know dwarfs by fits poorly with dwarfs from Norse mythology.

Also; Mjolnir and Gungnir are poor examples of dwarf craftmanship, seeing as they were both subpar. (Mjolnir having been created with a short shaft and Gungnir serving it's master very poorly.)

I am not exactly sure how you get these ideas,

the dwarfs in Norse mythology fits very well with the Tolkien dwarfs and for that matter Wagner's dwarfs.

How you get Mjølner as poorly crafted do to the dwarfs crafting skills are beyond me, since the myth clearly states that the short shaft is do to Loke's intervention.

and the spear gungnir is the second most powerful weapon in Norse mythology only surpassed by Mjølner.
there is a reason for why the most common icon worn to show you belonged to Asa faith in early medieval times where the Hammer of Thor, Mjølner.

[The MunchKING]

If I'm not mistaken, "ah dinnae kin" = "I do not know."

I think "kin" is a much bigger stretch in language. Kin = know? That's tricky.

Kin or ken is actually a sperate word that mean know or knowledge. For instance when the paladin told Redcloak he was mettling in things beond his Ken. he meant things beyond his understanding.

[Dixieboy]

and the spear gungnir is the second most powerful weapon in Norse mythology only surpassed by Mjølner.
there is a reason for why the most common icon worn to show you belonged to Asa faith in early medieval times where the Hammer of Thor, Mjølner.

I don't even want to get into why they fit the ideals very poorly.

Gungnir has never shown any kind of awesome.
Sure it supposedly had an ability made of win.
but odin NEVER used it against a worthy opponent.
When he finally will at Ragnarok he DIES, being killed by the fenris wolf, whom is killed by another Aesir by breaking it's jaw with his foot.
Gungnir, sleipner and Odin is outdone by a guy with a really heavy boot.

And while Loke indeed made Sindre and Brok screw up the crafting process of Mjølner, it was still screwed up, and while being an awesome weapon, it was still subpar, compared to what i could have been.

I used the Danish spellings as it is easier for me. :smallbiggrin:

[AtomicKitKat]

Scottish accent is easy.

As stated above, fantasy Dwarves are derived from old Jewish stereotypes(hence the beard as well, maybe), which typically depict them as dour, miserly, money-loving and stingy. Old British stereotypes of Scots depict them as much the same. When anti-Semitism fell out of favour after the last big war, they naturally became Scottish. That and it's sort of easier to mimic a Scottish/Irish/WelshGaelic brogue than a Jewish accent(not that there's much of one from most American Jews. Their accents sound more American to the rest of the world than anything else.).